Asymmetrical Information

I think he's alleging that by mentioning historical progressive's less-than-admiral side, you are trying to slander the current liberals adopting the progressive moniker by association. At least that's what I get from his associating your post with the others he mentioned.

Did you take his parking spot or something?

Well, if he calls you a "glibertarian," you just call him a "dumb-o-crat" right back! When he breaks down in tears under the assault of your savage wit, you can instruct him to stick his head in gravy, wash it off with bubble gum, and send it to the navy.

"In the gravy
You can smell the seven seasonings!
In the gravy
Yes, you can put your pallate at ease!
In the gravy
..."

Please don't waste your energy on the issue of naming. I doubt that "progressives" can agree on a list of ten principles any more than "libertarians" can. Naming is a way of glossing over differences. The hard truth is that all political issues have to be thought through one at a time, one fact at a time. There are no shortcuts and attempts to provide them by naming political leanings are just distractions that lead nowhere good.

The post above is one of those sentiments that sounds awfully reasonable on a first pass but is, in fact, slightly crazy when you think about it for a minute. Someone who in ordinary life actually approached all problems de novo, "one fact at a time," would be a non-functioning cretin.

I don't think Roy Edroso's style is to make full-fledged arguments. His schtick is to compose a sarcastic turn of phrase, an irritated gesture, a mental burp. His whole blog is the equivalent of a caveman grunt, "Us smart, them stupid."

Considering things "de novo" means considering each thing as a new experience unrelated to previous experience. Thinking about issues one fact at a time is different. Of course you think in terms of history and context. But you shouldn't use experience to ignore the current facts. Too often the naming of causes or political movements is an easy way to ignore the facts at hand. This is ideological fantasy. If dealing with facts makes you a non-functioning cretin, I'd hate to meet the functioning cretins!

I'd say Aaron is correct and Roy did misread your meaning. But how many people know anything at all about "the original Progressives"? Not many, I reckon.
But good for you for reading alicublog. The post you refer to notwithstanding, he can be pretty darn funny and, yes, insightful. (Actually the post you refer to misinterpreted you, but his point is spot on about the others.)

The original Progressives gave us the income tax; the contemporary interest group certainly admires that.

Then we should remind them that the original Progressives are responsible for substance control legislation. They'll be of two minds about that one!

Jane Galt:

"... What I was trying to say is, given that contemporary whatever-you-they-want-to-call-themselves are not racists, eugenicists, etc., I'm not sure it's a great idea to take the name of a bunch of people who were."

This is not convincing. Most people are unaware of the history which I suspect you are not describing fairly. And charges of racism are most effective against actual racists.

If you don't like progressive, what alternative would you suggest? I expect you would criticize any plausible alternative also.

Old "Progressives," new "Progressives"--they're all have their heads up the State's butt.

Old "Progressive," new "Progressive"--they all have their heads up the State's butt. The only real progress their interested is keeping society progressing further and further down the Road to Serfdom.

Comments are Closed.